Tags

  • Published on

    Leadership when it matters

    Leadership
    It has been said that a leader without any followers is, in reality, just a person going for a walk. Followers are, by definition, necessary. But the presence of followers is an incomplete measure of a leader's effectiveness. Messages of praise by acolytes and enthralled observers are rarely useful indicators either. 
    The winning of an election by a national politician, civic leader or a company director reveals little about the quality or effectiveness of their subsequent leadership. It simply shows they were more popular than their rivals on the day of the election! Consider the UK Prime Minister's victorious 'peace in our time' utterance in 1938 (which proved to be short-sighted, even deluded); the Watergate scandal (second-term presidential hubris); the Christchurch City Council's consents debacle (leadership ineptitude); and Wells Fargo's mis-selling of accounts (executive-level malfeasance). Chamberlain, Nixon, Parker and Stumpf were all thought to be leading well, but all ultimately stumbled when it mattered. 
    That leadership is a function, not a position, is axiomatic. And like magnetism and gravity, leadership cannot be seen directly; only through its effects. Indicators of leadership effect include the behaviours, decisions and actions of a leader as an overall goal is pursued.
    The past three weeks have produced innumerable examples of leadership behaviours and use of positional power to exert influence or make decisions in response of the COVID-19 outbreak. Here's a few examples:
    • Chinese authorities initially covered up the outbreak.
    • ​The President of the United States closed the border to travellers from the EU (and subsequently the UK and elsewhere), and claimed that the war on COVID-19 would be won by Easter.
    • The Prime Minister of New Zealand implored to people to stay at home and be kind; and, in relation to locking the country down and implementing border controls, claimed to have acted early and hard.
    • Singaporean and South Korean authorities locked down borders, and quarantined those confirmed or thought to have become infected by COVID-19.
    • The British Prime Minister asked people to go about their business, but subsequently locked down the country, and caught the virus himself.​
    An amalgam of factors contribute to any leader's effectiveness. These include (but are not limited to):
    • Providing a clear and credible objective: ​Has the leader clearly articulated an overall vision or end-state to be achieved—and is it realistically achievable?
    • ​Being visible: ​Is the leader visible, available and on-hand?
    • Being consistent: Are the leader's actions and behaviours consistent, or are they variable depending on the immediate situation?
    • Decisiveness: Does the leader make decisions with the intention of advancing towards the stated objective, using the best-available evidence and advice, or do they dither?
    • Acting with integrity: Is the leader honest, with a strong moral compass, or do they mislead?
    • Fairness and equity: Is the leader impartial?
    Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, has been lauded for her handling of the COVID-19 outbreak. She is widely regarded as being a great and empathetic communicator, which should not be surprising given her training is in public relations and communications. The form is good, but what of the substance of her messages? Is Ms Ardern actually providing strong leadership, as many have opined? The factors listed above is one means of considering these questions:
    • The Prime Minister has been highly visible during the COVID-19 crisis. She has attended press briefings, frequently appearing at the daily press update alongside the Director-General of Health and others to deliver news and answer questions. Her empathy with the plight of many is palpable.
    • The stated objective, currently, is to eliminate COVID-19. New Zealand is the only country to have taken up this lofty goal. If it can be achieved, that would be wonderful. But don't think for a minute that it will be easy. It will require complete isolation at the border for an extended period. Is such strict isolation feasible given New Zealand is an international trading nation within a global economy? And what of the longer-term economic outlook? The credibility of the objective is dependent in no small measure on the exit path—how to restart the economy. As yet, nothing has been announced.
    • The State of Emergency and enforced lockdown that New Zealand is enduring has stopped much economic activity. While the primary, logistics, healthcare and grocery sectors are operating, most retail stores and all non-essential businesses have been closed. Outdoor sports and fitness pursuits including team sports, surfing, mountain biking and many other types of outdoor exercise have been banned. Waiting times to enter supermarkets now exceed one hour in many places. The Police have been empowered to detain people flouting the rules, and individuals have been detained. Yet amongst this, the Minister of Health has seen it fit to ride his mountain bike and go to the beach. Of themselves, these actions by the Minister are not inherently unsafe. But they do set a poor example; a high degree of arrogance from a Minister who should have known far better. That the Prime Minister did not sack the Minister of Health immediately upon learning of his actions, or accept his resignation (which was offered), raises questions about the Prime Minister's performance, especially in relation to equity, consistency and decisiveness.
    • Calls to close the border and implement strict quarantine measures were first made at the end of February. In the days that followed, a bevy of academics, researchers and some self-styled experts published predictions about the large number of people who would die to COVID-19 infections. Some suggested 10,000, others 80,000. These numbers have been repeated by the Prime Minister on several occasions, which has the effect of endorsing them. The Prime Minister also said that as many as 4000 people may become infected before the 'curve is flattened', a number that is less than the predicted number of deaths! All of this, despite the Director-General of Health, an exemplar of stability and consistency, saying that he expected the curve to flatten in 10–12 days (from the date of the lockdown) and that that the case count would rise to about 1000–1400 by then. And it has. Why the Prime Minister did not heed the advice of her top health sector official is not known. Dire predictions (and several at that) and worse-case scenarios are of little help when the likelihood of them occurring is, essentially, nil. Meanwhile, the border has remained porous, despite claims of acting early and hard, allowing infected travellers to not only return, but disperse around the country.
    The picture that emerges here is one of a communicator who is endearing, building esprit de corps. But oratory without substance is not sufficient. Leaders need to set out a credible goal, clearly; be decisive and consistent;  and insist that decisions are acted on, in full.
    ​Calls for the Prime Minister to move beyond both empathetic sound bites and measures that would not look entirely out of place in a socialist regime are gaining traction. The time to consider the future is now; to forge the pathway towards economic recovery and the restoration of civil liberties within a functional civil society, is a matter of great urgency. And that is where the extent, quality and effectiveness of the Prime Minister's leadership will be laid bare. Leadership when it matters. 
  • Published on

    Succession planning or disloyalty?

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Ethics Leadership Performance
    Dave Rennie, a rugby coach from New Zealand, has just been appointed as coach of the Australian national team, the Wallabies. This appointment has raised eyebrows, not only because of the passport the appointee carries, but because of the appointment process. 
    It turns out the Rugby Australia had been speaking with Rennie for six months prior to the appointment being announced. Superficially, this appears to have been a smart move on Rugby Australia's part; a succession planning exemplar. But was it, or was it an act of disloyalty against the incumbent, Michael Cheika? The incumbent only made his intentions clear during rugby's showpiece, the Rugby World Cup, vowing to resign if the Wallabies did not win the William Webb Ellis Cup. Cheika and Raelene Castle, chief executive of Rugby Australia, were hardly the best of buddies, for sure. But when does strength in leadership (Castle has form) cross the line, becoming bullying?
    This case exposes an interesting dilemma for boards of directors. When does the board's duty of loyalty to the incumbent chief executive cease? Is it reasonable, for example, to publicly support the incumbent while also scheming in the shadows to replace him or her? If the board finds itself in a position of lacking confidence in the chief executive (regardless of the reason), it owes a moral duty to both the chief executive and the organisation for which it is responsible to act both swiftly and with integrity. Rugby Australia appears to have done neither. While Castle probably operated within the law (she is on record as saying that formal contract negotiations did not take place until after the Rugby World Cup), the moral high ground was forfeited long ago. And that, sadly, places both Castle and the Rugby Australia in a rather awkward position.
  • Published on

    Leading from the boardroom: a collective imperative

    Accountability Boardcraft Corporate Governance Decision Making Effectiveness Governance Leadership Research
    Picture
    Leadership is topical in most spheres of human endeavour; companies are no exception. To encourage others to achieve great things is the stuff of effective leaders. The most successful are widely-lauded. But leadership can take many forms, of course. Cast your eye over the last 100 years or so and you'll discern leadership in action in different ways. The era of the titan (Rockerfeller, Carnegie and Morgan being notable examples) saw leaders exert control over companies powerfully. The emergence of the management class in the inter-war years saw the emphasis change, the efficient operation of companies came to the fore. Since the turn of the century and the entry of corporate governance into the business lexicon, leadership has taken another form: the oversight of companies from the boardroom.
    Often, perhaps typically, leadership is understood to be an individual endeavour; a person exerting influence. But leadership has a collective dimension too—the board of directors is an instructive case. While individuals (directors, trustees) contribute to board discussion and process, it is the board (not directors) that decides. Leadership in this context is, exclusively, collective.
    Collective leadership requires a different approach. Directors need to work together to reach consensus for a start. This article has some more great tips that boards may wish to consider as they seek to lead effectively:
    • Good leaders focus more on character than ability. Where does your board recruitment practice put its energy?
    • Effective leaders are open to learning from others. When did your board last undertake a professional development session, together?
    • Effective leaders are marked out by a spirit of appreciation and thankfulness. Does your executive team know that you appreciate their work and the results they achieve? What about staff, clients and other stakeholders?
    • Effective leaders are self-aware. Does your board assess this, or is hubris a problem?
    • Effective leaders choose to get on the solution side very quickly. To dwell on problem definition and compliance is to vote for stasis not progress.
    How does your board measure up? More pointedly, does your board even know the effect of its decisions? Nearly thirty years ago, the challenge of explaining board influence over company performance was famously described by Sir Adrian Cadbury, a doyen of corporate governance, as being "a most difficult of question". Thankfully, some progress has been made in recent years, as researchers have entered the boardroom to conduct long-term observational studies of boards in session, and leaders such as Charles Hewlett have shared insights from their experience. While robust explanations remain elusive, one thing is now clear: neither the structure nor composition of the board is a direct predictor of its effectiveness, let alone company performance. If boards are to contribute effectively in the future, they need think, act and behave differently.
  • Published on

    How does your board rate on the 'trust' scale?

    Accountability Governance Integrity Leadership Performance Societal Wellbeing
    Picture
    Trust is one of those social building blocks that is crucial for getting things done with others. Board work by no means exempt. When directors a faced with making strategically-important decisions, they must rely on information from and interaction with their board colleagues, the chief executive and any other advisors who may have been invited to contribute. Then, after consideration and having made a decision, the board needs to follow through, by ensuring the decision is implemented well. But, and sadly, the  levels of trust both between directors and with external stakeholder groups is often lower than what is needed for effective decision-making. The following comments, originally published in 2016 by EpsenFuller (subsequently acquired by ZRG Partners), make the point deftly:
    Board directors today face a variety of challenges. Whether it is a case of corruption or the increasing threat of cybercriminals, their performance in dealing with these issues is the subject of considerable attention, explained The Huffington Post (Jan. 25, Loeb). Investors, consumers and NGOs alike are looking to boards for accountability in terms of company performance. Yet, a recent study found that public trust in boards of directors is lower than that of CEOs. A mere 44 per cent of survey participants claimed to have trust in a company's board—five per cent less than trust in CEOs. Influential constituencies are demanding that boards perform at exceptional levels while maintaining distinct independence from company executives.
    That some directors do themselves no favours (through poor behaviour, malfeasance, hubris and  failing to complete actions, for example) is self-evident. But all is not lost. High levels of performance are possible—if all of the directors commit to working together (both as a board and with management) and reach agreement on the company's core purpose; the strategy to be pursued to achieve the agreed purpose; how performance will be measured; and the values that will underpin behaviour standards, decisions, and everything the company does and stands for.
    Perhaps if more boards embraced this mindset (working together), with the company's best interests to the fore, the trust problem that generates so much tension (not to mention column inches) would gradually become a thing of the past. Is this expectation worth striving for, or do you think it is too ambitious?
  • Published on

    Who decides whether interests are conflicted?

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Governance Leadership
    Picture
    A situation developing at Hutt City Council (a local council not far from where I live) is instructive for boards everywhere. It concerns a proposal to make a grant to Hutt Valley Tennis, a tennis club, to assist with the redevelopment of its tennis facility. The entity and the size of the grant, $850,000, are largely immaterial. What is significant about the matter is that one of the Hutt City councillors is married to the president of Hutt Valley Tennis (a potential conflict of interest, perhaps?), and that the decision required a casting vote by the Mayor to break a deadlock. The local newspaper has just reported the matter, and a newspaper columnist has chimed in offering an opinion as well.
    On the conflict of interest: Questions have been raised as to whether Councillor Milne had a conflict of interest, because his wife is the President of the organisation that stands to benefit from the proposal. Milne registered his interest but denied there was a conflict of interest because his wife is a volunteer, and neither he nor his wife has a financial interest in it. But financial interest is not the appropriate test. A more appropriate test is whether the person can reasonably be expected to make an independent and objective decision, or other factors might lead to bias. Hutt Valley Tennis identified a potential conflict, and Milne registered interest. Yet Milne proceeded to participate in the decision-making anyway. On this matter, Milne appears to have missed a vital point: perception is reality (i.e., conflicts are assessed by others, not self). If there was any doubt at all, caution should have been exercised. To argue that there was not an actual conflict is inappropriate, some might suggest arrogant. Better for Milne to have removed any doubt by excusing himself from the discussion (by leaving the room), especially as he had already declared an interest. He should not have participated in the decision either. Standing one step back, the Mayor is not beyond scrutiny in this matter. Why did he not ask Milne to leave the discussion, and why was Milne not excluded from the decision?
    On decision thresholds: Local councils, like company boards, make decisions in the collective. This means that every resolution results in either a 'yes' or a 'no' decision (notwithstanding any deferral or request for more information). In local government, the minimum threshold for a binding decision is typically a simple majority, with the Mayor holding a casting 'vote' in the cases of a deadlock. But is a sensible means of collective decision-making? What of the downstream effects and consequences? To proceed following a split decision raises all sorts of questions, not the least of which is the opposed councillors' commitment to uphold (or undermine) the decision. A better threshold is consensus, whereby every councillor (director, in the case of boards) has space to speak for or against a proposal, and debate points, on the understanding that they support the decision afterwards (because their warrant requires them to act in the best interests of the entire constituency). If consensus cannot be reached, it is better to defer the decision, pending more information and/or discussion. 
    Thankfully, the Hutt City Council has recognised the situation for what it is. The council has decided to nullify the initial decision and reconsider the proposal next week. Milne has announced that he will not participate.
  • Published on

    Will board effectiveness improve in 2019?

    Accountability Corporate Governance Decision Making Effectiveness Governance Leadership Performance Value Creation
    Picture
    With 2018 consigned to history and holiday season break all but over, most business leaders and boards of directors are turning their attention to what the year ahead (and beyond) holds. Even a cursory glance reveals a plethora of issues that may have an impact on business continuity and, potentially, continuance. 
    Consider these indicators:
    • ​Rampant economies that have powered much of the global growth over the last decade may be running out of steam. Many Asian 'tiger' economies are growing less rapidly than before, Apple and other tech giants have issued warnings, indicating that a correction may be just around the corner.
    • Populism and nationalism are no longer words heard only in political and academic hallways.
    • The climate is changing.
    • Medical and social developments are impacting the lives of untold millions around the world.
    • Disruptive technologies and business models are fundamentally changing commerce.
    • Weaponising of biological 'forces' to reshape nations, economies and mindsets.
    • March 29, 2019 is shaping as a watershed date for Britons and Europeans in particular, but also others.
    • The US-China trade war and disquiet in the Middle East have the potential to disrupt international trade.
    • The emergence and potential impact of identity politics and various lobby movements (#MeToo and #GilletsJaune are two examples amongst many).
    • In several countries, general and/or local government elections are occupying the minds of many.
    And that's just the start.
    As is usual at this time of the year, business and governance commentators have stuck their collective necks out, promulgating a variety of predictions given the indicators (as real or imagined as each indicator may be); each behaving as if they possess levels of predictive insight beyond what a reasonably educated person might be able determine by tossing a coin. But do they? They cannot all be correct—in fact, none may be. 
    The challenge for boards, of course, is working out how to respond well. 
    What is becoming increasingly clear is that boards have become confused by what's going on around them. Increasing numbers have grown quite tired of 'conventional wisdoms' and so-called 'best practices' (plurals intentional). Some have responded by taking defensive positions, and others are boldly trying things without first understanding the contextual relevance.
    My response to enquiries from boards is straightforward: open your eyes to the possibilities, think and act strategically, but don't be impetuous. Check the current context, because things change, often in unexpected ways. Helping boards respond well typically involves sharing insights from research and practice; facilitating discussions; and providing contextually-relevant and evidence-based guidance. If you want to discuss options to respond well to a changing world around you, or lift the effectiveness of your board, please get in touch.